no FUD, just the Government......

"......Recent U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT)
vulnerability metrics reported 250 episodes for Microsoft Windows, 39 of
these having a severity rating of 40 or greater. With Red Hat Linux
there were only 46 episodes, of which only with only 3 scored over 40.
There are thousands of reports that compare the two operating systems
but reports like this by an independent government body, on the relative
number of critical flaws between them, should be given greatest
consideration........."

It also suggests why in China Windows is cheaper......because everyone
is using a pirated copy........lol......

"........The TCO is higher currently for Linux than for Windows, because
"unlike Western countries, the cost of buying operating systems accounts
for a very small portion of the total costs in China, at only 8.3
percent." I believe you can figure out what that means for yourself. The
word starts with a "P", if you are the BSA. So the headline could be:

"TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
with Pirated Windows"..........."

Advertisements

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:59:57 +1200, thing <> wrote:
>"......Recent U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT)
>vulnerability metrics reported 250 episodes for Microsoft Windows, 39 of
>these having a severity rating of 40 or greater. With Red Hat Linux
>there were only 46 episodes, of which only with only 3 scored over 40.
>There are thousands of reports that compare the two operating systems
>but reports like this by an independent government body, on the relative
>number of critical flaws between them, should be given greatest
>consideration........."
>
>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005070213203667
>
>It also suggests why in China Windows is cheaper......because everyone
>is using a pirated copy........lol......
>
>"........The TCO is higher currently for Linux than for Windows, because
>"unlike Western countries, the cost of buying operating systems accounts
>for a very small portion of the total costs in China, at only 8.3
>percent." I believe you can figure out what that means for yourself. The
>word starts with a "P", if you are the BSA. So the headline could be:
>
> "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
>with Pirated Windows"..........."
>
>regards
>
>Thing

Advertisements

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:26:17 +1200, Bret wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:59:57 +1200, thing <> wrote:
>
>>"......Recent U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT)
>>vulnerability metrics reported 250 episodes for Microsoft Windows, 39 of
>>these having a severity rating of 40 or greater. With Red Hat Linux
>>there were only 46 episodes, of which only with only 3 scored over 40.
>>There are thousands of reports that compare the two operating systems
>>but reports like this by an independent government body, on the relative
>>number of critical flaws between them, should be given greatest
>>consideration........."
>>
>>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005070213203667
>>
>>It also suggests why in China Windows is cheaper......because everyone
>>is using a pirated copy........lol......
>>
>>"........The TCO is higher currently for Linux than for Windows, because
>>"unlike Western countries, the cost of buying operating systems accounts
>>for a very small portion of the total costs in China, at only 8.3
>>percent." I believe you can figure out what that means for yourself. The
>>word starts with a "P", if you are the BSA. So the headline could be:
>>
>> "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
>>with Pirated Windows"..........."
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Thing
>
> That should read
> "TCO Higher for Linux Than for Pirated Windows"

But how can it be a Total Cost of *OWNERSHIP* if you don't *OWN* a license ?
Its like saying a stolen car has a cheaper total cost of ownership.
;-)

shannon wrote:
>>> "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
>>>with Pirated Windows"..........."
>>That should read
>>"TCO Higher for Linux Than for Pirated Windows"
> But how can it be a Total Cost of *OWNERSHIP* if you don't *OWN* a license ?
> Its like saying a stolen car has a cheaper total cost of ownership.
> ;-)

thats only true if you are counting purchase cost as being the only cost.

If you are driving a stolen car, it costs you less initially, but you
run the risk of getting jailed etc in the future, and so taking the jail
thing into it, I think i'd rather pay for the car than steal one.

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> shannon wrote:
>
>>>> "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
>>>> with Pirated Windows"..........."
>
>
>>> That should read
>>> "TCO Higher for Linux Than for Pirated Windows"
>
>
>> But how can it be a Total Cost of *OWNERSHIP* if you don't *OWN* a
>> license ?
>> Its like saying a stolen car has a cheaper total cost of ownership.
>> ;-)
>
>
> thats only true if you are counting purchase cost as being the only cost.
>
> If you are driving a stolen car, it costs you less initially, but you
> run the risk of getting jailed etc in the future, and so taking the jail
> thing into it, I think i'd rather pay for the car than steal one.
>

Though it appears lots do steal software....Ive worked for NZ businesses
where the cloning of MS OSES and MS office versions were common....one
place in Lyall Bay had 30 odd PCs, they had trouble even coming up with
3 Win98 licences (I think 2 were upgrades but windows 3.1 was not in
sight) when I went to do an upgrade.....

So with Linux competing against stolen software whose TCO is way lower....

As a unix admin I have also worked along side NTx admins who quite
readily used broken / forged keys for which ever piece of software they
wanted.....

So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
than install Linux or Open Office....

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:55:30 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> shannon wrote:
>>>> "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
>>>>with Pirated Windows"..........."
>
>>>That should read
>>>"TCO Higher for Linux Than for Pirated Windows"
>
>> But how can it be a Total Cost of *OWNERSHIP* if you don't *OWN* a license ?
>> Its like saying a stolen car has a cheaper total cost of ownership.
>> ;-)
>
> thats only true if you are counting purchase cost as being the only cost.
>
> If you are driving a stolen car, it costs you less initially, but you
> run the risk of getting jailed etc in the future, and so taking the jail
> thing into it, I think i'd rather pay for the car than steal one.

In article <42c89f0a$>, thing <> wrote:
>So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
>and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
>linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>than install Linux or Open Office....

It puts Microsoft in an awkward position - damned if they develop an
effective license control and damned if they don't.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Microsoft advertisement on the box for Windows 2.11 for 286

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:29:30 +1200, thing <> wrote:
>Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>> shannon wrote:
>>
>>>>> "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
>>>>> with Pirated Windows"..........."
>>
>>
>>>> That should read
>>>> "TCO Higher for Linux Than for Pirated Windows"
>>
>>
>>> But how can it be a Total Cost of *OWNERSHIP* if you don't *OWN* a
>>> license ?
>>> Its like saying a stolen car has a cheaper total cost of ownership.
>>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> thats only true if you are counting purchase cost as being the only cost.
>>
>> If you are driving a stolen car, it costs you less initially, but you
>> run the risk of getting jailed etc in the future, and so taking the jail
>> thing into it, I think i'd rather pay for the car than steal one.
>>
>
>
>Though it appears lots do steal software....Ive worked for NZ businesses
>where the cloning of MS OSES and MS office versions were common....one
>place in Lyall Bay had 30 odd PCs, they had trouble even coming up with
>3 Win98 licences (I think 2 were upgrades but windows 3.1 was not in
>sight) when I went to do an upgrade.....
>
>So with Linux competing against stolen software whose TCO is way lower....
>
>As a unix admin I have also worked along side NTx admins who quite
>readily used broken / forged keys for which ever piece of software they
>wanted.....
>
>So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
>and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
>linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>than install Linux or Open Office....

Oh puleeze
You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
with Windows on the same pricing level
HA HA HA

FreedomChooser wrote:
>>So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
>>and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
>>linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>than install Linux or Open Office....
> Oh puleeze
> You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
> with Windows on the same pricing level
> HA HA HA

Ummm, I'll stand up and say yes on this one... it has one thing that
Linux doesn't, the fact that it is windows, and that "everyone else uses
it", so the rest of the public/sheep like to be the same.

In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
>FreedomChooser wrote:
>>>So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
>>>and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
>>>linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>>than install Linux or Open Office....
>
>> Oh puleeze
>> You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
>> with Windows on the same pricing level
>> HA HA HA
>
>Ummm, I'll stand up and say yes on this one... it has one thing that
>Linux doesn't, the fact that it is windows, and that "everyone else uses
>it", so the rest of the public/sheep like to be the same.

Quite. I will go out on one of those tree apendages and say that most users
think that is all you can get. The concept of the possibility of
running something else isn't even in their thought processes as a
possibility.

Bruce

-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

In article <>, thing2 <> wrote:
(snip)
>Most companies state price is not the primary concern for switching to
>Linux / OSS, this is quite well documented.
>
>At the end of the day I dont really care whether you believe me or
>not....its up to you to look and make your own mind up.
>
>As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it
>drink....

... even if you hold it's head under water ?

Bruce

-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>>>So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
>>>>>and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
>>>>>linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>>>>than install Linux or Open Office....
>
>>>>Oh puleeze
>>>>You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
>>>>with Windows on the same pricing level
>>>>HA HA HA
>
>>>Ummm, I'll stand up and say yes on this one... it has one thing that
>>>Linux doesn't, the fact that it is windows, and that "everyone else uses
>>>it", so the rest of the public/sheep like to be the same.
>
>> Quite. I will go out on one of those tree apendages and say that most users
>> think that is all you can get. The concept of the possibility of
>> running something else isn't even in their thought processes as a
>> possibility.
>
>I'm not sayiong that it is good, or right, but that it just is.

Agreed. ... with the caveat that one choice only is usually a bad idea

Bruce

-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

FreedomChooser wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:29:30 +1200, thing <> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>>
>>>shannon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
>>>>>>with Pirated Windows"..........."
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That should read
>>>>>"TCO Higher for Linux Than for Pirated Windows"
>>>
>>>
>>>>But how can it be a Total Cost of *OWNERSHIP* if you don't *OWN* a
>>>>license ?
>>>>Its like saying a stolen car has a cheaper total cost of ownership.
>>>>;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>thats only true if you are counting purchase cost as being the only cost.
>>>
>>>If you are driving a stolen car, it costs you less initially, but you
>>>run the risk of getting jailed etc in the future, and so taking the jail
>>>thing into it, I think i'd rather pay for the car than steal one.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Though it appears lots do steal software....Ive worked for NZ businesses
>>where the cloning of MS OSES and MS office versions were common....one
>>place in Lyall Bay had 30 odd PCs, they had trouble even coming up with
>>3 Win98 licences (I think 2 were upgrades but windows 3.1 was not in
>>sight) when I went to do an upgrade.....
>>
>>So with Linux competing against stolen software whose TCO is way lower....
>>
>>As a unix admin I have also worked along side NTx admins who quite
>>readily used broken / forged keys for which ever piece of software they
>>wanted.....
>>
>>So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
>>and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
>>linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>than install Linux or Open Office....
>
>
> Oh puleeze
> You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
> with Windows on the same pricing level
> HA HA HA
>

Most companies state price is not the primary concern for switching to
Linux / OSS, this is quite well documented.

At the end of the day I dont really care whether you believe me or
not....its up to you to look and make your own mind up.

As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it
drink....

Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>>So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
>>>>and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
>>>>linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>>>than install Linux or Open Office....
>>>Oh puleeze
>>>You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
>>>with Windows on the same pricing level
>>>HA HA HA
>>Ummm, I'll stand up and say yes on this one... it has one thing that
>>Linux doesn't, the fact that it is windows, and that "everyone else uses
>>it", so the rest of the public/sheep like to be the same.
> Quite. I will go out on one of those tree apendages and say that most users
> think that is all you can get. The concept of the possibility of
> running something else isn't even in their thought processes as a
> possibility.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:04:05 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:29:30 +1200, thing <> wrote:
>
>>Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>>> shannon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "TCO Higher for Windows Than for Linux Even When Comparing Linux
>>>>>> with Pirated Windows"..........."
>>>
>>>
>>>>> That should read
>>>>> "TCO Higher for Linux Than for Pirated Windows"
>>>
>>>
>>>> But how can it be a Total Cost of *OWNERSHIP* if you don't *OWN* a
>>>> license ?
>>>> Its like saying a stolen car has a cheaper total cost of ownership.
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> thats only true if you are counting purchase cost as being the only cost.
>>>
>>> If you are driving a stolen car, it costs you less initially, but you
>>> run the risk of getting jailed etc in the future, and so taking the jail
>>> thing into it, I think i'd rather pay for the car than steal one.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Though it appears lots do steal software....Ive worked for NZ businesses
>>where the cloning of MS OSES and MS office versions were common....one
>>place in Lyall Bay had 30 odd PCs, they had trouble even coming up with
>>3 Win98 licences (I think 2 were upgrades but windows 3.1 was not in
>>sight) when I went to do an upgrade.....
>>
>>So with Linux competing against stolen software whose TCO is way lower....
>>
>>As a unix admin I have also worked along side NTx admins who quite
>>readily used broken / forged keys for which ever piece of software they
>>wanted.....
>>
>>So until we get some sort of regime in place that hammers pirate users
>>and makes most users pay the full wack its no wonder few want
>>linux....its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>than install Linux or Open Office....
>
> Oh puleeze
> You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
> with Windows on the same pricing level
> HA HA HA

Its not a pricing level, its stolen, there isn't a cost of ownership,
because its stolen.
You might as well steal the hardware too, if thats what you advocate.
"Windows is cheaper if you steal it"
MORON

shannon wrote:
>>>its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>>than install Linux or Open Office....
>>Oh puleeze
>>You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
>>with Windows on the same pricing level
>>HA HA HA
> Its not a pricing level, its stolen, there isn't a cost of ownership,
> because its stolen.

There is a cost of "ownership", well, a cost of "using it", which TCO
has to include to be in any way accurate.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:35:32 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> shannon wrote:
>>>>its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>>>than install Linux or Open Office....
>
>>>Oh puleeze
>>>You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
>>>with Windows on the same pricing level
>>>HA HA HA
>
>> Its not a pricing level, its stolen, there isn't a cost of ownership,
>> because its stolen.
>
> There is a cost of "ownership", well, a cost of "using it", which TCO
> has to include to be in any way accurate.

How can it be accurate ?
How can you include any other costs that a legit business would ordinarily
incur.
If you are stealing Windows, you are probably stealing the applications as
well, and you won't be getting support through legitimate channels either.

shannon wrote:
>>>>>its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program
>>>>>than install Linux or Open Office....
>>>>Oh puleeze
>>>>You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
>>>>with Windows on the same pricing level
>>>>HA HA HA
>>>Its not a pricing level, its stolen, there isn't a cost of ownership,
>>>because its stolen.
>>There is a cost of "ownership", well, a cost of "using it", which TCO
>>has to include to be in any way accurate.
> How can it be accurate ?

I assume you mean "How can TCO be accurate?"? well, if all costs(the
total costs) of ownership are included, then it will be an accurate
representation of the TCO... simple really.
> How can you include any other costs that a legit business would ordinarily
> incur.

To get the TCO you have to, hence the use of the word total in there.
> If you are stealing Windows, you are probably stealing the applications as
> well, and you won't be getting support through legitimate channels either.

"official support" is not necessarily needed, hell, I can't remember the
last time I had to call MS for support.

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> shannon wrote:
>
>>>> its ay easier to il-legally install and use a crack program than
>>>> install Linux or Open Office....
>
>
>>> Oh puleeze
>>> You expect us to believe now that the great Linux cant even compete
>>> with Windows on the same pricing level
>>> HA HA HA
>
>
>> Its not a pricing level, its stolen, there isn't a cost of ownership,
>> because its stolen.
>
>
> There is a cost of "ownership", well, a cost of "using it", which TCO
> has to include to be in any way accurate.
>

thing2 wrote:
>>> Its not a pricing level, its stolen, there isn't a cost of ownership,
>>> because its stolen.
>> There is a cost of "ownership", well, a cost of "using it", which TCO
>> has to include to be in any way accurate.
> So how do you factor jail time into the TCO?

dunno, I don't write these reports, and wouldn't know where to start...
ask a conslutant(spelt incorrectly on purpose... it is what they are)

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!